International Journal of Art and Art History December 2014, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 35-65 ISSN: 2374-2321 (Print), 2374-233X (Online) Copyright © The Author(s). 2014. All Rights Reserved. Published by American Research Institute for Policy Development DOI: 10.15640/ijaah.v2n2a2 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.15640/ijaah.v2n2a2 A Historiographical Discussion on the Origins of Visual Art Aaron Lawler1 Abstract The purpose of this research is to identify a correlation between biological (materialist) origins and adaptations to the creation and appreciation of art, specifically through the development of the aesthetic sense. Most research in the historiography of art and the origins of visual art, come from a purely philosophical tradition. Here, the focus is on scientific historiography in conjunction with philosophy, as a lens for understanding evolutionary biological adaptation. Premise This discourse, concerning the origins of the fine arts (and more specifically the visual arts), is explored through Darwinian evolution and inherited traits. Using a primarily materialist philosophical ontology, and a scientific epistemology, I hope to explain art history from a biological historiography. In this discourse, I will not propose a sole hereditary origin for the visual arts, but allow for a view that is also not solely anthropologically and/or sociologically driven. In other words, the creation and study of the visual arts, need not be originated in only as a social construct or cultural product, but might also be a genetically, materially originated function of the human as a material entity. 1Senior Lecturer and Adjunct Faculty Mentor, Moser College - Benedictine University, USA. Phone: 630-220-9565 36 International Journal of Art and Art History, Vol. 2(2), December 2014 An exploration of primate evolution will allow for a greater understanding of the philosophy of art, not necessarily the practice or purpose. That is, at some level we can speculate that deep-rooted in the human subconscious there is: 1) an instinct to create, 2) an instinct to value or appreciate beauty and 3) an instinct to imagine (by faculty of symbolic thinking, conceptualization and at some level deception). I will rely on Thomas Kuhn, who pioneered the historiography of science, and draw parallels between his outline of revolutions punctuating the ontology of science. I will apply this historiographic methodology and when applied to the visual arts, art history becomes: 1) a discipline of knowledge (not just of practice) and 2) an evolutionary advantage (a survival adaptation by means of natural selection). Adopting a perspective of art in a similar fashion to Kuhn viewing science as a series of paradigms disrupted by scientific revolutions; we are able to understand art as progressive and not merely aesthetically-orientated (based solely on cultural or population’s taste). Likewise, by adopting a materialist perspective we are able to see the nature of artistic development, the patterns formed with visual art’s origins, andneed not rely on only a progressive construct of art history but a thematic and contextual one, as well. The Historical Dialogue Thesis By exploring the physical, paleontological evidence and anthropologic findings, this discourse will conclude there are three fundamental evolutionary adaptations which have allowed the higher primates to develop art: 1) the physical adaptations and success of the primate lineages (including the genus Homo), 2) the development of interdependence in the primate lineages and 3) the development of intelligence. These three factors will help us discover (at least in part) the origins of the visual arts. Combined, these faculties allow for not only the appreciation of the aesthetic, but also the manipulation of natural material to create the aesthetic. Furthermore, the best way to analyze art through criticism or historical perspective, is not through abstract philosophy, phenomenology, or theory, but rather through a scientific exploration of evolutionary sources of the aesthetic sense. Aaron Lawler 37 This scientific methodology, owes much to the historiography of art history (and criticism) established by the great thinkers of the continental tradition. However, the next step in the progression of this thinking, is to embrace the rational, the testable, and the scientific. Materialist Perspective The Western worldview owes as much too continental philosophy, as much as it does to materialism. Specifically, the materialism which so embodies a scientific methodology (such as expressed by Darwinism), and that method’s origin in Marxist dialectical materialism. What we know as science or the scientific approach, is uniquely indebted to Marixsm, if not as its progenitor then certainly as science can be applied to the human, to the human mind, to the human condition, and to human sociology (psychology, behavior, culture etc.). Under this model, all things – including human consciousness – are products of material. Materialism thus rejects idealism, and describes everything, including the faculties of mind, as processes of material. The human entity is thus a material entity, and its ability to sense the aesthetics, the ethics, the ontology, and the epistemology of the world, lie in physicalism not in some metaphysicalism. Matter is the explanation – in totality –for intelligence, consciousness, nature, space, time, history, culture, behavior, and cause and effect (Marx, 47, 96). Although similar to theorists before him, Marx describes the progress of the human mind and of human history (its society, its culture, and its civilization) as moving forward. But unlike his predecessors, Marx argues that it is not human ideas that define succession, it is matter (Marx, 11). For Marx, this meant the drive lies in the material needs: the physical requirements for existence, happiness, justice and aesthetic. Marx’s materialism is rooted in his economic theories, specifically production, alienation and labor. The motivation of historical society comes from the antagonism between the classes and their pursuits of the material (Marx, 50 – 53). 38 International Journal of Art and Art History, Vol. 2(2), December 2014 The enterprise of humanity is the development of new societies through evolution of the material world: material needs, material existence. Spirit and idea have little place in Marx’s theory of human nature (Marx, 10). Though there are many objections to materialism, especially from disciplines in philosophy and religion, it would be hard press to argue that the Western tradition is not deeply rooted in materialism. The natural extension of Marxist philosophy of nature leads one to Charles Darwin and Sigmund Freud. Under these models, the human being – its nature and its consciousness – become reduced to the most fundamental matter. Under Darwin, the human is no different than any animal or living organism. The human’s brain is nothing but the next progression of the ape’s, the dog’s, the reptile’s, the fish’s etc. His motivations and his enterprises are natural ones, defined by his material needs. The human ceases being a prize of this world, and is diminished to matter – the interaction of his matter, either in body or brain. His love, his hate, his hunger, his fear, his deceptions, his desires are no different than any other animal’s. The human is a creature of survival, and does what it can to survive best. Survival in this sense is the preservation of matter. And under this context, there is little room for idealism or spiritualism. Freud takes us one step further in materialism, by reducing the human psyche to chemical processes and interactions of psychical processes. Not only is the human comprised of simple biology, but his personality, his character, his identity are mere expressions of the psychical apparatus. Such a reduction, brings the human being to the most elementary materialism. It is because of Darwin and Freud, that I argue the Western tradition is materialist. It is so, not without objection, but as an age – as a society at this time and place – the Western tradition is post-Marxist, post-Darwinian, and post-Freudian. The worldview cannot escape its history. Even those who object to the purely materialist perspective, can only do so as a rejection of it, or a compromise under dualism. We cannot undo the theories of the preceding culture. And thus, we either must react to them, or embody them. Our age is defined by this kind of materialism. A materialist historiography of the human knowledge is the next litmus in testing the path history and society takes. Aaron Lawler 39 Arguments for Materialism in Art History I cannot overstate the importance of Marxist, Darwinian and Freudian materialism. This perspective is unique, to the modern and the postmodern, in that it allows for the overcoming of the vagueness of idealism, rationalism, and transcendentalism. The definitions of mind, nous, spirit and soul are certainly vague, because of their intangibility. In a post-materialist world, it is difficult to argue for properties that have no testable, repeatable, and/or observable presence. Materialism corrects the issues of understanding how the phenomenal and the noumenal worlds interact. Often, materialism comes under such criticisms as conceivability, conditionalism, dualism, and disembodiment arguments. The conceivability argument is based on logical fallacy. If metaphysical phenomena are possible to conceive, then such phenomena are possible to exist – if not physically, certainly logically. However,